Feminine Foes: New Science Explores Female Competition

A quick association exercise. What comes up when you hear the following words:

Competitiveness. Aggressiveness. Violence.

If you think of the word "male", you’re most likely not alone. The above features are frequently attributed to maleness and masculinity. On closer inspection it also becomes clear that male competitiveness, aggression and violence are often directed primarily at other males: on the battlefield, on the playing field, in the office, at the bar, or on the street. Charles Darwin long ago noticed the existence of intra-sexual competition between males; he also understood that the basic aim of all this male mayhem was to gain the attention and reproductive favor of females.

Influenced by Darwin (and by the fact that until recently most researchers were men), most of the research into intra-sexual competition has focused on the struggle between men to gain sexual access to women. Only in the 80s did science begin to investigate in earnest the same phenomenon on the other side of the gender divide: female competition for a suitable male. A host of studies in recent years have shown convincingly that the traditional view of women as passive and uncompetitive is wrong. Women, it turns out, are engaged in a competition of their own, aggressively jockeying for position in a battle to secure a suitable mate.

According to evolutionary theory, intra-sexual competition will concern mainly those traits that are attractive to the opposite sex. The American evolutionary psychologist David Buss found in the eighties that intra-sexual competition takes two primary forms: self-promotion and competitor derogation. Men demonstrate and promote their physical abilities and social status (masculine traits favored by women). Women tend to promote their youth and physical attractiveness (feminine traits favored by men). Men try to derogate their rivals by disparaging their economic and physical strength, while women criticize the age, appearance and character of their opponents.

Building on David Buss’s pioneering work, the Canadian researchers Maryanne Fisher and Anthony Cox discovered a few years ago two additional tactics commonly used in intra-sexual competition: mate manipulation and competitor manipulation.

Mate manipulation involves trying to end the race early when we are still in the lead, before our competition catches up. An example: If your boyfriend visits you at the office often, and then a very attractive and available coworker joins the office in a cubicle next to yours, you may be motivated to ask your guy to stop visiting you at work.

Competitor manipulation is analogous to arguing that a movie is not worth the price of admission. This can be achieved by bad mouthing the movie (for example if you tell someone bad things about the guy you're interested in) or raising the price of the ticket (as when you spend lavishly on your date to discourage competitors who can’t afford to match your largesse).

According to Joyce Benenson, a researcher at Emmanuel College in Boston, competition among women has three unique characteristics: first, because they have to protect their bodies from physical harm (so as not to interfere with present or future pregnancy and childbirth), women rely on veiled aggression towards other women (behind verbal gymnastics or under cover of the group) rather than physical confrontation.

Second, high status and very attractive women need less help and protection from other women and are less motivated to invest in other women (who represent potential competition). Thus, a woman who tries to distinguish or promote herself threatens other women and will encounter hostility. According to Benenson, a common way women deal with the threat represented by a remarkably powerful or beautiful woman is by insisting on standards of equality, uniformity, and sharing for all the women in the group and making these attributes the normative requirements of proper femininity.

Third, in extreme cases women may guard against potential competitors by means of social exclusion. If a new attractive woman shows up in the neighborhood (or school, or club), all the women in attendance may turn their backs on her, compelling her to withdraw from the scene, thus increasing their own chances with the surrounding males.

A number of recent studies provide further support for the existence of the 'female competition' phenomenon. For example, Jon Maner and James McNulty of Florida State discovered that women's testosterone levels went up when they (unknowingly) smelled t-shirts of ovulating young women, presumably in preparation for aggressive competition. Canadian researchers Tracy Vaillancourt and Aanchal Sharma, showed how women judge and condemn each other based on appearance. They arranged for female participants to interact with a young research assistant. Some of the participants saw the assistant dressed in revealing clothes while others saw her wearing jeans and a T-shirt. The researchers tracked participants’ responses to the assistant during the meeting and after she left the room. Results: The assistant was unanimously criticized when she wore revealing clothes and largely ignored when she wore regular attire. This study (and others) supports the evolutionary prediction: a more attractive woman (i.e., one who has more of what men like) will receive more hostility and less cooperation from other women because her presence threatens their own access to the evolutionary prize.

A central arena for competition between females is sexual behavior itself. Studies show that women tend to criticize and reject other women who are viewed by them as sexually promiscuous. The researcher Zhana Vrangalova and her colleagues at Cornell University recently surveyed 750 college students about their sexual behaviors and attitudes. Then, participants read a short description of a hypothetical person (of their own sex) who had either two (nonpermissive) or twenty (permissive) past sexual partners. Participants then rated this potential friend on several friendship-relevant outcomes. Results revealed that female participants, regardless of their own level of permissiveness, overwhelmingly preferred the nonpermissive potential friend. According to the researchers, this is because women want to guard their partners and because they fear socal stigma: if you go around with someone who’s known to be promiscuous (a “slut”), there is danger that the label will latch on to you, too.

This study and others align with the observation that women are often the chief enforcers of strict and sometimes cruel norms of female appearance and sexual behavior. For example, the ritual of female genital mutilation, still practiced in some Muslim countries in Africa, is primarily designed to make the girl into good ‘bride material’ for men. To that end, clitoridectomy reduces her ability to enjoy sex and therefore decreases the likelihood she’ll be tempted to cheat on her husband. Sewing the vaginal opening shut, which is often performed after the genital cutting, reduces the possibility that the girl will have sex before marriage, again benefitting the interests of the future husband. Still, this ceremony is managed, performed and enforced by women (mostly mothers and grandmothers).

Another example: Girls’ foot binding was a custom in China for over a thousand years (until it was outlawed in the early twentieth century). The ancient custom (which involved breaking the toes of the baby, folding them and binding the feet tightly for years) was valued primarily because women with small feet were considered more desirable sexually (in the eyes of men) and because a wife’s tiny, useless feet were evidence of the husband’s wealth (‘I’m so rich my woman doesn’t need to work; indeed she can’t’). In this case too, the main enforcers and managers were mothers and grandmothers.

The evolutionary explanation for these phenomena relies on the assumption that sex with a woman (and thus access to her uterus) is a biologically desirable and scarce resource for men. Among women of childbearing age, reducing the sexual 'supply' increases female bargaining power in the relationship economy. Thus, it pays for women to enforce sexual conservatism even at the cost of ostracizing and manipulating other women identified as permissive. Mothers and grandmothers, by the same logic, have a strong incentive to ensure that their daughters (who carry their genes) will become highly attractive to men, even at the price of causing them early suffering and mutilation.

Feminist psychology, however, argues that competition among females is driven primarily not by biological imperatives but rather by social mechanisms. According to this argument, cutthroat female competition is due mainly to the fact that women, born and raised in male-dominated society, internalize the male perspective (the “male gaze”) and adopt it as their own. The male view of women as primarily sexual objects becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. As women come to consider being prized by men their ultimate source of strength, worth, achievement and identity, they are compelled to battle other women for the prize.

In this sense, the feminist approach argues in effect that many women are beset by what Karl Marx called, 'false consciousness.' According to Marx, a factory worker who’s convinced that his enemy is another worker looking for a job has false consciousness because he does not understand that the true enemy is the owner of the factory, who sets workers against each other in order to subjugate them both and get rich on the value of their labor. Many women, according to this argument, refuse to see that the real threat to their achievement, power, value, and identity are not other women, but the male establishment that controls their lives.

Either way, female competition has a price, and not only on the political level. This competition produces much of the stress that interferes with the happiness of many women, especially young ones. Studies show that compared to men, women tend to be more sensitive to emotional information and are better at decoding subtly encoded social and interpersonal messages. In addition, women's sense of self-worth is based more on their friends’ opinions of them. This combination of acute awareness of--and sensitivity to--subtle social cues renders women more vulnerable to indirect interpersonal aggression.

For example, the researcher Christopher Ferguson of Stetson University in Florida and his colleagues asked participants to watch two television programs (with a svelte and chubby female star) and interact with a woman (in attractive or casual attire). They found that participants’ mood and self-image were not affected by the TV shows but significantly affected by the live encounters. Interacting with an attractive woman dressed in flattering clothing led the participants to feel distressed and negative about their bodies, especially if the encounters were held in the presence of an attractive man.

At the end of the day, the tendency to engage in intra-sex competition appears to be a part of our genetic hardware and a feature in the heritage of human culture. Our genes and social habits are not easy to change, certainly not overnight. But the first step toward changing a habit is becoming aware of it. To that end, men may want to ask whether ‘getting the girl’ is worth the spilled blood and broken bones, while women may do well to reflect on whether the goal of getting a man (and his sperm and support) justifies the competitive tactics of manipulating, shaming or ostracizing other women and the pain it causes them.

there is no such thing as female genital mutilation in islam. I'm a religious studies student and it really annoys me when people confuse a MESSED UP CULTURE for a religion. Oh that's right. Muslims are the current scapegoats.. so I suppose even an article like this HAS to have MUSLIMS in it too hah? seriously. -_-

The article isn't blaming the religion, or saying the practice is a part of Muslim doctrine, merely stating the fact that, in the countries in Africa mentioned, those that practice genital mutilation, the national religion is Islam. We could discuss the history of Islam in Africa, the conquests, wars, and back and forth with Christian invaders, but the article doesn't much call for that, now does it? Calm down, religious studies student. You'll stress yourself to death if you keep reading into things on the internet with such hostility.

This is not about "reading with hostility". It just shows the blatant ignorance of the scholar who doesn't know enough about a religion to be careful with associating female genital mutilation with Islam. I cannot trust anything else he says in the article.

So women are vulnerable and at a disadvantage generally. What's new? Hope is new, understanding and re-organizing is new (see Kathleen Hannah and the Riot Grrl Movement, compassion and equality is new, pan-sexuality and not just needing sperm is new, evolving into a better kind of beast is new. Get with it! Get out of your academic institutions and into the street where real people are overcoming theory and living better lives.

We are continuously stuck dealing with our evolution. Dealing with our hormones can be difficult. Someday we'll be able to track our hormones levels on a daily bases at home. This should help us regain control ourselves. (oversimplified & futurized)

i would like to tell you that nowadays there are so many women in the world who are out of their home and doing work like men.in today's world in every field women are there and they are increasing competition. in today's world population increased so competition also increased. to encourage girls government is doing a lot. they are providing some benefits like free education free transport and so on. because of this exploitation of women decreased and they are aware of their benefits. so i am totally agree with all these competition it should be there and every one should increase that.

i have searched a lot and i have observed that in each and every field girls are having so their importance and their place. nowadays women are taking part in the interviews of army and other jobs in which manpower is main. but then also they are getting jobs because of their knowledge and also their passion. salute to those women....

Many people find it hard to take seriously as genuine science much of so-called "Feminist Psychology" based as it is on an ideological construction of a mythical "patriarchal" social structure. (Patriarchy is the Feminist equivalent of the Great Golden Frog worshipped by some tribes in the New Guinea mountains.) Of course intellectual relativism smoothes the road for all sorts of political nonsense by using the rhetorical device of regarding all and every "position" as being equally worthy of serious consideration. Try this line of argument as an example. "Oh the position of Newton on planetary motion was that the planets circle the Sun, while another position is that of Ptolemy who argued that the Sun circled the earth." See they are both just arguments, and who can say which should be preferred. Patriarchy sides with Newton, while Feminists side with Marx or something ... So Noam Shpancer, Ph.D., the question is what is the quality of your science? I note you were pathetically quick to launch into quoting Marx ... did you forget about Carlos Castaneda or something or haven't the Feminist Psychologists got around to Casteneda yet?

I have a very satisfactory life, married 20, with several lovers. I have two beautiful children and a satisfying job. I am an acquaintance to several women, but I make sure to keep my distance. My mother and grandmother were the same way. Go figure.

Sometimes I run across women who claim they won't trust a woman who doesn't have female friends. That tells me right there that they themselves are lacking in many desirable traits. A woman who has it all going on knows she intimidates other women and is aware that envious women will stop at nothing to try to bring her down and destroy her. So if a woman doesn't have any female friends, I just assume she has it all going on and is very attractive to men. She knows it never ends well and other women can't be truly supportive to someone they feel has/is more than them just at birth alone.

These back-biting women always hang themselves in the end, so kill them with kindness. Sometimes you have to call them on it by asking them straight out if they think they're the first ones to ever be threatened by you. Be self assured that the men or women who are blind to this competitive behavior an attractive woman brings on is simply ignorance. What that says is that they grew up and/or socialize with women who weren't on the receiving end of envy from anyone. Those people are unable to detect it because they don't know any better. You can point it out to them by asking if their female family members have ever been victim to this tiring bullshit. Their own answer will wake them up to the situation. To those ignorant fools, you explaining the dynamic will only lead them to believe you are full of yourself. Just ask them the question above to lead them out of their darkness.

I am one of those people who is wary of women who say they have no female friends. Your comment is a little hard to understand - why are women who are wary of women who have no female friends back-biting? Why do you assume they are jealous? I have some VERY attractive desirable female friends, and I'm not bad myself. But when I'm with a few of these friends, I'm invisible. Anyway, the point is....even women that are very attractive can have successful friendships with other females. So when someone tells me they DON'T have female friends I tend to think it is because they are extremely competitive, and cannot handle sharing the spotlight with other women. On the other hand, it could just be that they prefer shallow friendships. Men, generally speaking, have more surface level friendships - they discuss sports, hobbies, or other things that do not require being vulnerable and discussing feelings, their inner most thoughts, etc. Either way I'm wary because to me, friendship IS discussing those things, and being vulnerable around your friends. I cannot do that with a woman whose instinct is to compete with me, or with a woman who just refuses to dig that deep.

I only have male friends. I might say, "I'm well off, but they have much more." or even, "When we're together, it's obvious who shops in Italy." but if I said, "When we're together, I'm a pauper." it would be obvious that I harbor negative, competitive feelings against them. The rest of your argument works, but then you slipped and showed everyone the truth. You are why I do not keep female friends.

Your idea that men have shallow friendships is nonsense. We talk about our hopes for our children's futures, fears about the stability of our incomes, even fears of divorce or dying alone, and so on. Yes, we talk about things we do, but we don't ever talk about celebrity gossip, recipes, or make snide remarks about our neighbors, which is at least half of any conversation I've had with a woman.

I couldn't agree more! I noticed that too. I don't think the other person is wrong for feeling that way, but they need to find a way to deal with it somehow.
We've all been in the presence of "that girl"...the one who gets more attention than we do.
And I see where the other poster is coming from...it hurts to be ignored (invisible) when somebody else is the focus of admiration.

But I agree with you. It's not the feeling itself that matters, it's HOW we deal with it.
I think if a person feels insecure or "invisible" around somebody else, they should step back and try to work on their self-esteem issues.
If this means spending less time with the person who inspires these negative feelings, that might help. Maybe even find new friends on the same level, who aren't so "threatening" in terms of beauty or (insert positive quality).

Why can't you understand the respnse. The poster is implying that there are reasons why a woman doesn't have any female friends. Because women cliques are cruel to certain women whom don't measure up to the queen bee. Stupid.

this is so true. Many people don't want to admit this, but it's true.
I'm not gorgeous or anything, but I had certain attributes that were envied by others when I was growing up.
I was thin with nice curves, I had long hair and very light skin (I am biracial, black/white). I experienced a lot of racism because of the way I looked. A lot of dark-skinned women, in particular, have issues with mixed women due to the idea that lighter women are treated better in society.

I was very shy growing up and I had very low self-esteem. Women and girls with their own issues often attacked me, causing my self-esteem to drop even lower.
They would say vicious things to/about me for no apparent reason.
My own aunt even did this to me! I certainly don't think I've "got it going on" but the people who hurt me were obviously envious and threatened.

Some women don't know how to deal with their insecurities in a healthy way and they lash out at other women who might be smarter, prettier, kinder, etc.
Instead of looking at themselves and trying to be happy with who they are, they choose to hurt others. It's sad when people treat one another this way. All women have their own beauty, all women have something to offer the world, and bringing others down just makes a person ugly.

The indoctrination NEVER stops, EVER... This never ending meaningless spew fest is whats wrong with America and the World.

Umm, everyone is different... Most different are men and WOMAN... The lines may occasionally blur with societal indoctrination but rest assured when it comes down to the nuts and bolts we are NOT the same animal... Men think and act completely different than any female. Its natural and should be HIGHLIGHTED as a strength of human kind instead of the ferminazis insistence its bad and caused by misogyny.

This Marxist, Feminazi attempt to put woman on Par with men is an OBVIOUS ploy being played out by MARXISTS of the permanent victim class.... F-U and YOUR village, Biatches..

I can think of lots of better things than this ... btw most concepts of Marxism are vague, can you share your own crisp, clear, incisive concepts of Marx with us? ... No, I thought not ... as for "gender" ... isn't that also merely a construct of the patriarchial hegemonic masculinising ruling elite oppressor classes?

I'm always dumbfounded at how women even concern themselves with this game of insecurities. Even smart and beautiful women can be insecure about who they are. It has nothing to do with evolution if you simply take a step back and think rationally. What does evolution have to do with self-degradation and insecurity? Neither personality flaw is beneficial to the individual or humankind.

Clearly, something greater is at work in the minds of each person aside from that which is deemed 'self', if you are with me. Something exists that which apparently does not seek the best of the self, or mankind, at any rate.

Why else would there exist any sort of personality disorders or psychological deficiencies? There is a force which many people have clearly left to itself and it is ... evil. This is a result of the fall of mankind and mankind's deliberate rebellion against God (El Ohim). Mankind is in a meal covenant with Satan and few people even have the understanding that it is the truth. 'How did that happen' you may ask. When Adam and Eve rebelled against God by eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they agreed with the devil that they should be 'like God'. There was oly one problem: they already were! Satan deceived them into thinking they were something other than who they truly were... In other words, he fooled them into becoming insecure about their identities!

Okay this entire article has been a series of misogynistic opinions that keep reducing women to animals who are merely interested in protecting their bodies from harm (so they can continue having babies?!?! that's the only reason seriously?!) and choosing particular friends so they can keep "their man" and not be seen as "sluts". But I stopped reading entirely when I hit THE most blatantly ignorant line in this article: "For example, the ritual of female genital mutilation, still practiced in some Muslim countries in Africa,..."

EXCUSE ME?! Female genital mutilation is STRICTLY forbidden in Islam! Some *countries in Africa* still practice it, yes. But what the h**l are you insinuating by saying that it is "still practiced in some MUSLIM countries in Africa"?

Seriously disappointed and disgusted by this article. In shock that "scholars" can get away with writing this crap.

Actually, the article is not at all ‘misogynistic’ or ‘reducing women to animals.’ Rather, it considers the effects of our ‘animal nature’ (as expressed in evolutionary mechanisms we share with all other animals) on our social behavior. There is no reduction here, but an attempt to highlight several of the complex processes that may shape our social behavior. (By analogy: when I consider the effects of your brain neurons on your behavior, I am not reducing you to a bunch of neurons. Etc). Re FGM, it is true that the practice predates Islam and is not mentioned in the Quran. At the same time it is also true that right now, it is practiced predominantly in African, Muslim-majority cultures. So the term “Muslim countries in Africa” serves as accurate shorthand for locating the practice. It can scarcely, in the context of this particular article, be read as a blanket condemnation of the religion or the continent, and is definitely not meant as such.

This article is frustrating on so many levels it is hard to know where to start. Since the author has such a one-dimensional understanding of fgm, he should read 'Desert Dawn' by Waris Dirie. Women who were uncircumcised were considered sluts and prostitutes and potential husbands would refuse them. He seems to allot blame to mothers and grandmothers without having done any research ... how neat. Even Wiki gives a broader picture, including the possibility of the spread of fgm through the slave trade where women were subjected to fgm to prevent pregnancy during transportation or as a result of the influence of eunuchism.
To be uncircumcised became such a source of deep shame that aid workers found they could not persuade women in parts of Africa to stop the practice. However, women like Waris Dirie and other humanitarian groups continue to make inroads.

Perhaps making resources more accessible to females, and not denying resources- for reasons of procuring female mates- would eliminate the need for female 'manipulation' of those in control of said resources; allowing females to survive and thrive w/ out being forced to depend on a male.

about the catty behavior of some women. I started to experience hate and jealousy from other females (some of whom were old enough to be my mother!) when I was as young as 9 years old.
It only grew worse when I started being noticed by boys at the age of 12 or 13.

There have been hurtful comments about my weight (being called "fat" by women much bigger than me); comments about my sex life; comments about my hair/clothes/makeup; racism because they couldn't deal with a woman of my background receiving male attention.
In short, behavior that was intended to cut me down and make me feel bad so I wouldn't be "competition".

I've noticed that any woman who talks about this is often silenced by other women.
It's like a dirty little secret. We know that women are often cruel to other women out of envy and jealousy, but it's taboo to admit it.
It's not PC to tell the truth about why some people act this way.
As to female friendships...I'm still looking for a friend who is cool, kind, drama-free, and not catty but so far, I haven't found her yet.